Yeah. My hope is that at least some of the people might submit a larger patch, and perhaps do some reviews later.
-
-
Replying to @fuzzycz @magnushagander and
What a new contributor might consider an easy drive-by patch, and what might actually *be* a drive-by patch, are often two different things… and that requires review time to triage. I'm concerned that the current reviewers being buried under well-meaning, low-quality patches.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's certainly a risk. The flipside of it is that it might *also* help as entry level patches for new *reviewers*. I am certain it's not a silver bullet. I'm far form certain it will work at all. But there is really only one way to find out.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @magnushagander @Xof and
Since moving to Github, we get first-time contributors with drive-bys as well as complicated patches with bugfixes and features in *every* release, on a 2 month cycle
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @d_gustafsson @magnushagander and
I dont particularly advocate GH for postgres, but believing the tool is the problem for getting contributions is false iMHO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @d_gustafsson @magnushagander and
I mean at the very least we should have a http://CONTRIBUTING.md and a bot that redirects PRs to the CF docs. But, then we'd need to actually have useful docs about contributing and the development workflow. What we have is a bunch of outdated and contradictory wiki pages.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @d_gustafsson and
I've serious doubts about moving to github or somesuch, but I do believe that there's an actual problem here.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @d_gustafsson and
Moving? I don't think anyone suggests moving everything to GH (I certainly don't want that). It's rather about making small contributions easier for people who are already there. Or do you think that's problematic too? Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fuzzycz @d_gustafsson and
Even if it's just a partial move, it'll split review. And I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll manage to very clearly separate what's allowed to happen in github PRs, and what on the list.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @fuzzycz and
You can review a patch on GH, have someone pick it up and commit it in he main repo (maybe with mandatory post to -hackers first). Then just close the PR with a comment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I just about never happens that a random first timer's (others will know to submit to ML) patches are correct enough to not need back and forth. Or that even the intent is clear enough to just guess and do what you think is right.
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @ascherbaum and
Nor do we want committers to commit stuff that others haven't had a chance to comment on, if it's not entirely clear cut. What you are describing is *precisely* that the review would be split into multiple places, and everyone would be forced to watch both.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.